Narrative:

Flight was being vectored for quiet bridge visibility approach to 28R at sfo. Simultaneous tipp toe approachs to 28L were in progress as well. Approach control kept us high during maneuver to final, and then pointed out commuter traffic at 10-11 O'clock, on visibility to 28L. There were numerous aircraft on approach with city lights as a background, so we declined to acknowledge having the specific aircraft. We were nonetheless cleared for a visibility to 28R. Previously issued ATC speed and altitude restrictions now put us into a maximum effort confign and descent problem to complete the approach. Arriving at approximately 1000' AGL and on glide path at approach speed, we found ourselves neck and neck with the commuter aircraft bnd for 28L.since speed adjustments to get some spacing were not possible that close to the airport, I briefly considered a go around. I also wondered if the approach was even legal to do. The proximity was very uncomfortable and certainly out of the norm for airline operations. If either aircraft had swung side to the inside during line up on final, a collision would have been likely. The runways are only approximately 800' apart. This seems like another example of approach control dumping airplanes in on visibility approachs and letting the pilots sort it out.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF MLG QUESTIONS SPACING ON PARALLEL VISUAL APCH IN VMC.

Narrative: FLT WAS BEING VECTORED FOR QUIET BRIDGE VIS APCH TO 28R AT SFO. SIMULTANEOUS TIPP TOE APCHS TO 28L WERE IN PROGRESS AS WELL. APCH CTL KEPT US HIGH DURING MANEUVER TO FINAL, AND THEN POINTED OUT COMMUTER TFC AT 10-11 O'CLOCK, ON VIS TO 28L. THERE WERE NUMEROUS ACFT ON APCH WITH CITY LIGHTS AS A BACKGROUND, SO WE DECLINED TO ACKNOWLEDGE HAVING THE SPECIFIC ACFT. WE WERE NONETHELESS CLRED FOR A VIS TO 28R. PREVIOUSLY ISSUED ATC SPD AND ALT RESTRICTIONS NOW PUT US INTO A MAX EFFORT CONFIGN AND DSCNT PROB TO COMPLETE THE APCH. ARRIVING AT APPROX 1000' AGL AND ON GLIDE PATH AT APCH SPD, WE FOUND OURSELVES NECK AND NECK WITH THE COMMUTER ACFT BND FOR 28L.SINCE SPD ADJUSTMENTS TO GET SOME SPACING WERE NOT POSSIBLE THAT CLOSE TO THE ARPT, I BRIEFLY CONSIDERED A GAR. I ALSO WONDERED IF THE APCH WAS EVEN LEGAL TO DO. THE PROX WAS VERY UNCOMFORTABLE AND CERTAINLY OUT OF THE NORM FOR AIRLINE OPS. IF EITHER ACFT HAD SWUNG SIDE TO THE INSIDE DURING LINE UP ON FINAL, A COLLISION WOULD HAVE BEEN LIKELY. THE RWYS ARE ONLY APPROX 800' APART. THIS SEEMS LIKE ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF APCH CTL DUMPING AIRPLANES IN ON VIS APCHS AND LETTING THE PLTS SORT IT OUT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.